Conceptualizing rural energy transitions: Energizing rural studies, ruralizing energy research

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Conceptualizing rural energy transitions: Energizing rural studies, ruralizing energy research

T

Matthias Naumann1,∗, David Rudolphb 1 b

Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Geography, Helmholtzstr. 10, D-01061, Dresden, Germany Technical University of Denmark, Department of Wind Energy, Frederiksborgvej 399, DK-4000, Roskilde, Denmark

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Rural areas Energy transition Rural change Conflicts Renewables

Academic debates over the spatial implications of energy transitions and the realization of sustainable futures have predominantly focused on urban areas, which has resulted in the notion of ‘urban energy transitions’. The idea of ‘rural energy transitions’, however, has remained rather underexplored. This is surprising because resources needed to produce renewable energy constitute a key element of energy transitions and are inextricably tied to rural spaces. In particular, rural regions accommodate the majority of renewable energy infrastructures, such as wind turbines, solar, and biogas plants, as well as transmission grids. In that sense, urban energy transitions are simply impossible without rural energy transitions. Nevertheless, ‘rural’ dimensions of energy transition processes in the Global North have received only little scholarly interest, while the main focus of academic work has been on urban agglomerations. Despite the growing attention afforded to energy-related issues in the social sciences, in general, and urban studies and human geography, in particular, rural studies have only slowly started engaging with energy transitions as a research field. This paper, therefore, combines social science research on energy and rural studies to address this research gap. It identifies three intersections of both research traditions; namely, rural areas as locations for the materialization of energy transitions, contestations around energy issues in rural areas, and the emancipatory potentials of rural energy transitions. We argue that linking social science energy research and rural studies can yield valuable insights into the rural character of energy transitions and the role of energy within rural change.

1. Introduction Rural areas are crucial for energy transitions. They provide the necessary resources for such transitions and serve as sites for the generation of renewable energy. While the vast majority of research on energy transitions in rural areas has originated from the geographical context of the Global South (e.g. Rehman et al., 2010; Murphy, 2001; Cloke et al., 2017; Boamah, 2019), debates on the spatial implications of energy transitions in the Global North have mainly focused on city regions, where urban energy transitions have been the target (Rutherford and Coutard, 2014). Other than that, researchers have theorized about the spatial manifestations of low-carbon and sociotechnological transitions (Coenen et al., 2012; Hansen and Coenen, 2015). The concept of a ‘rural energy transition’, however, has rarely been used in scientific publications (Rehman et al., 2010) and still lacks a conceptual definition. This is surprising since materializations of energy transition discourses are intimately entwined with, and shaped by, rural conditions, which likewise shape rural areas. Kitchen and

∗

Marsden state that rural areas are “spaces that need to contribute to adapting and mitigating climate change (for example, as carbon sinks, renewable energy sources or carbon energy offsets)” (2009, 273). Frantal et al. remind us that energy has always been a part of rural landscapes and economies, but that this dimension has recently gained new importance “in the way that rural landscapes are utilized, perceived and governed” (2014, 3). The significance of rural areas for the generation of renewable energy and as sites for adapting to and mitigating climate change has been acknowledged (Woods, 2012; Argent, 2019). Yet so far, only a few studies have directly focused on the rural dimensions of energy transitions, most of them by hinting at locational and contested aspects of rurality. A pivotal and widely cited study by Woods (2003) has revealed how different social representations of rurality shape the variegated attitudes towards wind farm development in Wales. Avila (2018) points to the rural context and uneven development that underlie conflicts over wind farms in the Global South and North. Lennon and Scott (2017) investigate the role of contested narratives of rurality in realizing post-carbon rural transitions in Ireland,

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Naumann), [email protected] (D. Rudolph).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.011 Received 5 March 2018; Received in revised form 31 October 2019; Accepted 13 December 2019 0743-0167/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

while Phadke (2011) illustrates the rise of social tensions in rural landscapes following new energy developments in the US. Phillips and Dickie (2014), in turn, examine rural residents' awareness of carbon dependency, energy transition efforts, and adaptive measures to tackle climate change. A growing body of research has also begun to address challenges, as well as the spatial and effective implications of lowcarbon energy consumption and sustainable lifestyles in rural settings (Vannini and Taggart, 2013; Shirani et al., 2016; Roberts and Henwood, 2018). These studies hint at the significance of various, at times conflicting, discourses, practices, and technologies shaping energy transition processes. While most social science research on energy issues focuses on cities, rural studies' contributions mainly explore different sustainable development subjects in rural spaces, but without an explicit focus on energy (McCarthy, 2005; Woods, 2007, 2009; Shucksmith, 2018; Rignall and Atia, 2017). Despite their decidedly spatial focus, social science studies of energy-related issues are still in need of acknowledging rural areas, rurality, and rural change as a ‘fertile academic borderland’ (Calvert, 2015) in order to help shed more light on energy transitions. Similarly, rural studies may benefit from taking a closer look at the role of energy transitions in shaping rural areas. Given the fundamental importance of rural spaces for energy transitions, compared to the dominant urban focus of energy transition research, this paper aims to bring together the hitherto largely separate academic debates on energy transitions and rural change. Our key questions are: what role does the rural context play in social science energy research, and, in turn, what effects do energy transitions have on rural areas? By addressing these questions from the perspective of energy focused social science and human geography research, we aim to explore common features and implications of heterogeneous rural energy transitions. This paper is based on an extensive literature review of studies on energy transitions that investigate rurality and publications on rural change with a focus on energy issues. The research topics of ‘energy’ and ‘rural change’ are inherently interdisciplinary, which is why the literature review considers publications from different academic disciplines. Research in human geography, either as energy or rural geography, plays an important role in helping identify the spatial dimension of energy transitions. Our main argument is twofold: we believe that energy research is able to generate valuable insights into the different dynamics of rural change and that a rural perspective can provide a better understanding of the spatial dimension of energy transitions. This paper proceeds as follows. First, we provide a brief overview of the current state of research on energy transitions and their rural characteristics. Second, we identify rural areas as locations of, and contexts for, energy transitions. Third, we discuss contestations as a characteristic feature of rural transformations of energy systems. Fourth, we argue that rural energy transitions are able to foster more just and sustainable futures. In the final section we summarize rural dimensions of energy transitions and avenues for further research. In essence, this paper urges scholars to pay greater attention to the significance of rurality within energy transitions and to critically reflect on the consequences of energy transitions within the discipline of rural studies.

sustainable futures. Within the rapidly growing field of social science research on energy, we turn our focus to energy geographies, which allows for a comprehensive look at both energy and rural issues. The wide range of research topics within energy geographies include energy poverty and exclusion, identity and culture, geopolitics and justice, climate change, and a critical understanding of energy transitions towards more sustainable ways of energy provision. Putting geographic concepts such as location, landscape, territoriality, uneven development, or scale in the center of energy transition research allows for a spatial examination of the paths towards a low-carbon economy (Bridge et al., 2013). On the other hand, spatial perspectives have also recently gained attention in transition research within Science and Technology Studies. Here, a relational understanding of space is mainly employed to better grasp socio-technological transitions in order to overcome a spatial blindness in research on transition dynamics (Coenen et al., 2012). Unlike transition researchers, critical energy geographers have started studying the political economy of energy transitions and their far-reaching socio-spatial consequences (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013). In doing so, they have pointed out the green growth imperative inherent in ecological modernization and sustainable economic development discourses, which assume that climate change can be countered and that energy transition can be implemented by harnessing the forces of neoliberal capitalism (Batel and Devine-Wright, 2017), yet without sufficiently considering the need for social change and spatial transformation. Energy transitions, in general, and the use of renewable energy, in particular, are thus assumed to provide socioecological fixes to capitalist crises and solutions to climate change by maintaining existing accumulation processes and creating new ones (McCarthy, 2015). These conditions also pave the way for neoliberal governance of energy transitions, in which direct control and decision-making over the places and means of energy production are often delegated to the private sector. Several studies have critically reflected on the consequences of this (Newell and Mulvaney, 2013; Moss et al., 2015). A central theme in debates within geographies of energy transition concerns the significance of uneven development in producing new spatial configurations of the energy system that lead to uneven energy landscapes (Bridge et al., 2013; Balta-Ozkan et al., 2015). Energy landscapes are the visible products of the human quest for energy. They are “co-constructions of space and society that come into existence through a series of material and social relations” (Pasqualetti and Stremke, 2018, 95) resulting from different modes of energy supply. The shift to low-carbon energy results in energy landscapes that are distinctly different to the ones formed by fossil fuel intensive and extractive energy systems. However, critical geographers are well positioned to explore the uneven processes and outcomes of energy landscapes by inquiring into how politico-economic processes lead to some areas forging ahead in terms of transitioning towards renewables, while others lag behind. Such inequalities and disparities become particularly relevant with regard to rural and remote areas, which are supposed to mainly accommodate the manifestations and effects of the productive means of energy transition. Although a growing importance of rural areas for energy transitions is often implied, this dimension remains largely underexplored. Despite highlighting the field of energy transition research, recent conceptual contributions in energy geography (see Zimmerer, 2011; Bridge et al., 2013; Huber, 2015; Calvert, 2015) have not made reference to the specific role of rural areas in the shift toward a low-carbon energy system. In contrast to urban contexts, where transitions to sustainable energy systems variously manifest themselves as ‘transition towns’ or ‘smart cities’, the rural dimension still requires much greater scholarly attention (Poggi et al., 2015). Especially as “rural areas may tend to consider low-carbon technology ahead of urban dwellers” (Markantoni and Woolvin, 2015, 204), given their particular needs related to fuel poverty and energy use. Roberts and Henwood (2018) have recently raised awareness of the dynamic interplay of personal and structural circumstances of rural households in enabling or constraining

2. Energy transitions and rurality In recent years, we have seen a vast interest in energy issues from social scientists; an area that had previously chiefly occupied researchers in the natural sciences, economics, and engineering. In contrast to such a technological focus, social science research on energy pays particular attention to the political, economic, cultural, and spatial dimensions of energy production, distribution, and consumption, as well as the social and political processes that shape our energy system. The renewed interest in energy issues grew out of a global discourse on climate change, socio-technological innovation, and possible 98

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

transitional activities. In spite of this, however, little attention has been paid to the needs and opportunities of rural communities for transitions to a low-carbon future. Moreover, while Huber and McCarthy (2017, 665) “predict that any transition to such new geographies of energy supply would necessarily involve powerful new claims on, struggles over, and massive new deployments of capital and labour in rural spaces in many locations around the world”, they do not fully recognize that such struggles have already been fought out with the intensified commercial deployment of renewables for at least a decade, to name just one example. For the most part, the vast literature on the local acceptance of, and controversies over, renewables has barely touched upon rural dimensions and concomitant conflicts (except Woods, 2003; Phadke, 2011; Lennon and Scott, 2017; Rudolph and Kirkegaard, 2019). Given the underexplored link between rural change and energy transitions as spatial processes, this contribution aims to identify how energy transition research and rural studies intersect to initiate a debate on rural energy transitions. Taking the emerging field of energy geography as a starting point, this paper seeks to bring together these two research fields by illustrating the importance of energy transitions for rural areas and highlighting the rural dimensions of energy transitions. In doing so, it identifies and outlines three central dimensions in which energy transitions intersect with spatial domains and shows that ‘the rural’ has not been sufficiently taken into account as a co-constituting geographical subject in energy transitions. These dimensions have been identified and problematized in energy geography research and comprise the locations where socio-material processes of energy transitions manifest themselves; contestations over the spaces, processes, and outcomes of energy transitions; and the emancipatory potentials of energy transitions. In practice, these three dimensions are intertwined and cannot easily be separated from each other. The following sections will demonstrate that location, contestation, and emancipation constitute useful lenses for conceptualizing rural energy transitions.

wind power sector” (Phimister and Roberts, 2012, 337). Abundant wind resources and sparsely populated areas with cheap land and small communities are considered suitable locations for viable and sufficiently large wind farms (Munday et al., 2011; Ejdemo and Söderholm, 2015). Rural, sparsely populated, and economically underdeveloped regions have thus often become target areas for the installation of renewable energy facilities (Munday et al., 2011; Rudolph and Kirkegaard, 2019). Second, rural areas are not just neutral and spacious sites where energy transitions simply materialize. Rather, rural areas are transformed through new energy facilities and change into contested and unevenly structured landscapes and also into emancipatory spaces, allowing for more just development. Specifically, rural and decentralized renewable energy development is commonly expected to produce regional economic benefits. While energy transition efforts in rural development in the Global South mostly manifest themselves in smallscale and decentralized measures to achieve rural electrification to overcome fuel poverty (Love and Garwood, 2011); rural development in developed countries generally aims to ameliorate dynamics of decline, out-migration, and peripheralization. These regions often suffer from what has been termed the eco-economic paradox, in the sense that rural areas have high ecological potential, yet low levels of economic activity and offer few welfare services (Kitchen and Marsden, 2009). Renewables are meant to fill this gap and capitalize on the ecological potentials of rural areas. In particular, wind farms are supposed to be developed in economically underdeveloped rural areas (Munday et al., 2011). A case study by Mulvaney et al. (2013) from the US revealed that the low socio-economic status and the rural nature of a locality were the most important reasons why residents expressed support for the development of a wind farm project. Thus, rural areas and their ecoeconomies are “a key potential driver for real sustainability transitions” (Marsden, 2016, 598). Energy transitions can turn rural areas into arenas for the local promotion of eco-economies in which renewable energy production forms a central pillar (Magnani et al., 2017). The development of renewables in rural areas is meant to (partially) make up for a rural agricultural sector that is undergoing structural transformation and, thereby, threatening the livelihood of many farmers. Renewables are thought to help diversify land use and farmers' income sources in order to strengthen the rural economy. A politics of rural growth sees renewable energy as a means of revitalizing and revalorizing rural economies through new ‘industrial productivist’ (Cowell, 2010). Such transformations become particularly relevant, as rural economies still rely heavily on traditional primary sector industries (Creamer, 2014). However, the rise of renewables as a source of income in rural economies, as an auspicious field for rural entrepreneurs (Morrison and Ramsey, 2019) and a catalyst for innovation (Dawley, 2013) or as new ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’ (Eaton et al., 2014), can potentially foster economic progress and carry great symbolic importance in marginalized and remote rural areas. Predominantly agricultural areas with low levels of industrialization and great potential for renewable energy production supposedly benefit from becoming so-called ‘energy regions’ and meeting tangible targets for additional economic activity and revenue generation (Späth and Rohracher, 2010). Additional income and economic activity can be achieved through community or cooperative ownership of the means of energy production (Walker, 2008; Van Veelen, 2017), municipalzation efforts (Moss et al., 2015), or benefit-sharing in the context of commercial and corporate energy projects (Cowell et al., 2011). Communal energy projects, in particular, represent an opportunity for addressing climate change and fostering the local community and economic development in declining rural regions, as these constitute a “new source of income, with the potential to seed new enterprises and new jobs to attract people back to the area” (Hicks and Ison, 2011, 253) and to enhance ‘rural vitality’ (Love and Garwood, 2011, 306). Community initiatives and community-based projects may not focus on energy production alone, but may also focus on energy provision (Magnani

3. Location: placing energy transitions in a rural context “Rural areas become central sites for the development of the postcarbon transition.” (Marsden, 2016, 597) Despite the loose connections between energy transition research and rural studies, the quote above illustrates that the rural is widely considered the central location of energy sector transformations. However, in the following section we argue that there are two dimensions of the rural that become meaningful for energy transitions in terms of their location: 1) the rural as the paramount site for the production of electricity and heat from renewable energy sources, and 2) the rural as a socio-economic resource that itself is transformed through energy transition processes. First, the transition from fossil fuel or nuclear-based energy generation to renewable energy production is marked by a shift from subterranean extractive production modes that require relatively little surface land to a more decentralized and horizontal production of renewable energy that relies on much greater surface area (Huber and McCarthy, 2017). The sites for extracting energy resources are no longer exclusively determined by the specific location of coal, oil, and gas deposits, but by the availability of accessible land to harness renewable sources such as wind, biomass, and solar radiation. While such resources are practically limitless, physical space is not. Demand for spatial resources puts increasing pressure on certain regions boasting an abundance of renewable resources. Thus, the assumed availability of land puts rural areas at the center of energy transitions. Since “renewable energy is generally generated in rural areas” (Markantoni and Woolvin, 2015, 204), they are the spaces where energy transitions manifest themselves in a small- or large-scale deployment of renewables. Remote rural landscapes, in particular, are supposed to offer promising opportunities for renewable energy production (Walsh, 2016, 3). Wind farms in rural areas highlight the “rural nature of the 99

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

et al., 2017) to address common challenges of remote rural areas, such as fuel poverty. Moreover, benefits derived from renewables can entail a regular and sizable income stream to support local projects that would otherwise require public sector funding (Haggett and Aitken, 2015). Rural manifestations of energy transitions are accompanied by a reversal of the post-productive discourse, incorporating rural areas into new production and capital accumulation processes. In short, there is a co-evolution of rural areas and energy systems. While rural areas provide the necessary land for renewable energy production, developing alternative energy systems promises to stimulate rural development. Unlike transformations of urban energy systems through the promotion of decentralized renewable energy (Castan Broto, 2017), however, the co-evolution of rural energy transition processes and rural social and economic development has received very little attention so far, particularly in the Global North. The spatial and social implications of communal energy systems and means of ownership to drive rural development need to be critically examined to scrutinize the assumed interrelations and reciprocities of energy technology, ownership, and rural development (Berka and Creamer, 2018; Benedek et al., 2018). However, the economic valorization of postproductive or marginalized locations through renewable energy development, and the resultant transformation of rural areas is a highly contested issue, as will be elaborated upon in the next section.

environment within which they are located” (2003, 274). The associated externalities, such as the physical appearance and noise of wind energy technologies, in particular, play a major role in sparking controversy (Cowell, 2016, 17). Furthermore, new energy facilities also give rise to conflicts over land use (Anderson et al., 2017; Poggi et al., 2018), as is evident, for example, from the ‘food vs. fuel’ debate (Baumber et al., 2011) and disagreements over different types of renewables. Other conflicts arise over questions of the visual impact of energy facilities and whether or not they are thought to tarnish the landscape (Jefferson, 2018). Such conflicts are deeply rooted in personal experience and social contexts (Wheeler, 2016, 128). Thus, it is not far-fetched to argue that “disputes over wind turbines aggravate social class divisions between those that see rural areas as landscape and those that see it as a place of production” (Fast, 2013, 859). The physical presence of energy facilities in the landscape supposedly alters and disrupts the emotional attachments and affective relationships people have towards the places they inhabit (Devine-Wright, 2009). However, as Fast (2015, 1551) states, opposition against wind farms does not only stem from their impact on landscapes and places. According to Woods, “conflicts about the physical landscape impact progressed in a context of agricultural depression and socio-economic change that provided an additional layer of debate” (2003, 284). This leads us to the question of how the costs and benefits of energy transitions are distributed throughout rural communities. Second, the distribution of revenue generated from producing and supplying energy is another key issue underlying conflicts over rural energy transitions. Van der Horst and Toke (2010) show that wind farm development reflects socio-economic inequalities in rural England because peripheral rural areas are particularly dependent on income generated from renewable energies. Nevertheless, there is much controversy over how local communities will benefit from the installation of energy facilities (Bristow et al., 2012). The question of a just distribution of costs and benefits is directly linked to the question of ownership of land and energy facilities. Zografes and Martinez-Alier (2009) highlight the exploitive character of center-periphery relations, while Munro (2019a) emphasizes the role of ownership, infrastructure, and scale in transition-periphery dynamics. Marsden (2016, 606) argues that rural energy transitions spurred by neoliberal paradigms lead to a ‘financialization’ of rural areas, which prioritizes investor profits over local distributive benefits. Since “the creation of renewable energy geographies on the requisite scale would involve major new productions of space that would disproportionately affect rural areas where land values are lowest and existing users often have less power and fewer formal land rights” (McCarthy, 2015, 2486), the utilization of rural areas for energy production can resemble a ‘commodification of nature’ (Castree, 2003) or an act of ‘green grabbing’ (Dunlap, 2017, 21). Rudolph and Kirkegaard (2019) have shown how the territorial stigma of marginalized rural areas in Denmark is utilized to legitimize the clearance of space for siting wind farms. The question of local benefits and their distribution is, therefore, a key issue in just rural energy transitions (Cass et al., 2010). Are local benefits only a form of ‘bribery’ (Aitken, 2010)? How could local benefit schemes around renewables and associated infrastructures be set up (Rudolph et al., 2018; DevineWright and Sherry-Brennan, 2019)? These questions are directly connected to the issues of who decides whether energy transitions are realized and who is affected by them. Third, rural energy transitions may also be contested depending on the way local communities are involved in the decision-making about renewable energy projects. Wolsink states that “the perception of fairness in decision-making about siting facilities […] is strongly connected with perceived environmental risk, and also with strongly deviating core values about how society should take such decisions, not only within the public, but among all stakeholders involved in such processes” (2007, 1203). Van der Horst and Toke (2010) illustrate that the outcomes of planning processes are largely uneven in rural England, mirroring respective social capital and manifesting a democratic deficit.

4. Contestation: conflicts over rural energy transitions “Wind energy opposition politics are essentially battles over rural space; over who controls the productive and consumptive qualities of rural landscapes.” (Phadke, 2011, 256) Renewable energy production is often highly contested, even though rural energy transitions are assumed to entail various benefits and have a positive impact on the development of rural areas. Pasqualetti states that “[t]he social barriers to renewable energy have been underappreciated and underexamined” (2011, 219), which has resulted in a wealth of studies looking at various controversies, conflicts, and contestations arising in the context of the use of renewable energy resources, and the resulting outcomes. These articles study the ‘social acceptance’ of renewables. Bell et al. (2005, 2013) see a ‘social gap’ between the general acceptance of renewables, on the one hand, and opposition to local facilities, on the other. Acceptance, therefore, poses a major challenge for local energy transitions (Mulvaney et al., 2013). A literature review conducted by Fast (2013, 855) illustrates that wind energy is by far the most contested technology. Other renewable energy sources, however, also face local opposition (for conflicts over bioenergy see Baumber et al., 2011, for geothermal use see Kunze and Hertel, 2017). As discussed in the previous section, most renewable energy infrastructures are situated in rural areas, which is why many contestations occur in a rural context as well. Rural areas – understood as ‘resource peripheries’ – provide the resources for the use of renewables and can transform into deeply contested spaces (Murphy and Smith, 2013; drawing on Hayter et al., 2003). Surprisingly, there have been only a few explicit references in the literature to conflicts and contestations around energy transition processes in rural areas (e.g. Woods, 2003; Phadke, 2011; Shamsuzzoha et al., 2012; Rudolph and Kirkegaard, 2019). In the following, we will address three major issues where ‘the rural’ becomes meaningful within contestations: first, regarding the physical impact of energy infrastructures on rural landscapes; second, concerning the distribution of costs and benefits of energy transitions throughout rural communities; and, third, in terms of issues of local decision-making and participation within rural transformations of the energy sector. First, due to the high demand for land for renewable energy use, Woods concludes that “[…] the expansion of renewable energy requires the construction of new hydro-electric, wind, wave and bio-mass power stations, all of which will have significant impacts on the local 100

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

Woods (2003) even describes the emergence of new social movements in the rural context. Democratic and participatory disputes concerning collaborative or non-collaborative forms of governance of rural energy projects can, therefore, also produce conflicts (Gailing and Röhring, 2016). This also involves questions regarding the scales at which decisions are made, as well as the scope and focus of engagement in the planning. The necessity for, and motives of, public engagement have meanwhile been identified as being the most important factors in this context (Barnett et al., 2010). However, the scope, rationales, and quality of community engagement in the deployment of renewables vary widely in practice (Aitken et al., 2016), just as do mechanisms for the distribution of community benefits. Different kinds of community engagement, therefore, also variously shape local responses to renewable energy projects. Fast (2015) clarifies that local supporters and opponents of renewable energy facilities are far from being a homogenous group. Therefore, all three identified aspects of energy transition contestations are interlinked and must be understood as having an influence on each other. To summarize, post-carbon transitions will be mainly fought out in rural areas. We agree with Marsden, who states that rural areas “have become a major fulcrum and stage for more intensification of these sustainable contestations” (2016, 598). Contestations of rural energy transitions are inseparably connected to other aspects of rural development. According to Woods (2003), energy conflicts should be seen as conflicts between different identities and imaginations of ‘rurality’. He distinguishes between two broad perspectives on rural landscapes: a natura-ruralist perspective that seeks to protect idyllic and vulnerable rural nature from ‘harmful human intervention’, on the one hand, and a utilitarian perspective in which the wild rural landscape must be tamed through human activity. In the case of energy, the rural can be seen as both a ‘productive space’ or as a ‘space of consumption’ (Ibid., 284) of energy. Cowell (2010, 228) uses the term ‘productivist countrysides’ to hint at a ‘new’ productive quality of rural areas, while Fast concludes that “conflicts over wind farm siting are also conflicts over the changing value put on consumptive versus productive uses of rural landscapes” (2013, 862). We agree with most contributions that argue that explaining contestations over energy transitions as a ‘not in my backyard’ phenomena is misleading (Van der Horst, 2007; Fast, 2015). Instead, a more thorough exploration of rural characteristics of siting conflicts allows for a new perspective on contested energy projects. Such a new perspective necessitates linking the analysis of rural energy transitions to reflections on the uneven development of rural areas. Spatial justice and democracy are key issues not only for understanding contested rural energy transitions, but also for thinking about the ‘emancipatory’ potential of rural energy transitions, as the next section will discuss in detail.

which have only recently found their way into energy research. So far, there are no clear and consistent definitions of what energy democracy or energy justice would look like in practice. However, there are conceptual reflections on how questions of justice and democracy could be applied to the energy sector. Becker and Naumann (2017, 2) define energy democracy as “an umbrella concept that encompasses various calls by social movements, critical think tanks, trade unions, and political parties for more just, democratic, and sustainable energy systems in different contexts” and develop a typology of approaches towards energy democracy. According to this typology, initiatives for energy democracy include efforts for decentralized energy generation, for public and cooperative ownership, and for energy sovereignty. In short, energy democracy refers to a combination of community empowerment and renewable energy development as an alternative to exclusively corporate, market-driven solutions to environmental problems. Efforts to achieve energy democracy can be seen as contributions to more just and sustainable futures. The rural dimension of these efforts, therefore, deserves greater attention. Although notions of justice have gained increasing traction in developing a critical understanding of the constitution of energy systems and related spatial characteristics, social inequalities, and socio-technological transitions, rural areas have thus far not been explicitly examined from the perspective of energy justice. The concept of energy justice also has its roots in environmental justice, which broadly focuses on highlighting the social consequences of environmental degradation and identifying assumptions driving environmental decision-making, as well as the (un)just distribution of environmental hazards. Research into these issues has been broadened in the energy justice literature to incorporate the three central tenets of distributional justice, procedural justice, and recognition justice (McCauley et al., 2013; Jenkins et al., 2016; Bailey and Darkal, 2018) in order to critically investigate energy systems. Another framework of energy justice includes justice-related principles of availability, affordability, due process, transparency and accountability, sustainability, intra-generational equity, and responsibility (Sovacool and Dworkin, 2015) that are all applied to questions focusing on energy policy and the political economy of energy systems. Energy justice provides an analytical and conceptual lens, and serves as a decision-making tool that allows for a more equitable way of assessing and resolving energy related dilemmas and controversies revolving around the benefits and burdens of energy production and consumption (Ibid.). It can also help shed light on injustices (Jenkins et al., 2016). Spatial injustices underlying the production and consumption of energy can be grasped through a spatial justice perspective, as applied by Bouzarovski and Simcock (2017), who highlight that fuel poverty and energy deprivation are intertwined with, and produced through, geographical inequalities. Although they recognize that “justice implications of various forms of specifically geographical forms of inequality have rarely been examined” (Ibid., 641) in terms of energy production and consumption; ‘the rural’ and rurality, as geographic dimensions of energy injustices, remain largely unexplored. In turn, the rural characteristics of off-grid issues, fuel poverty, and transitional efforts have been mentioned (Vannini and Taggart, 2013; Roberts and Henwood, 2018), but without putting them explicitly into the context of energy (in)justice. The concept of spatial justice has so far been employed to illuminate geographical processes producing injustices and inequalities. Yet again, rural matters within energy transitions have been neglected. On the other hand, rurality has recently been afforded greater attention in research addressing questions of environmental (in) justices (Ashwood and MacTavish, 2016). The principles of energy justice are nevertheless relevant for critically examining rural spaces. The relationship between energy and justice is arguably multifaceted (Fuller and McCauley, 2016). Procedural and distributional issues in relation to the production and consumption of energy, as well as social and spatial inequalities within energy transitions, call for a thorough investigation of rurality. Matters of democracy, community involvement, benefit-sharing,

5. Emancipation: toward just rural energy transitions “Developing wind energy in a manner more compatible with environmental justice would require thinking at a community scale.” (Ottinger, 2013, 225) The various conflicts arising over (the locations of) rural energy transitions, distributive aspects, governance issues, and the potential for benefit-sharing, economic development, and spatial emancipation lead to questions about what a just low-carbon transition of rural areas could look like. Social science perspectives on energy research have increasingly focused on issues of energy justice, energy democracy, and a ‘right to energy’ (Walker, 2015; Jenkins et al., 2016; Morris and Jungjohann, 2016). Nevertheless, these debates have not explicitly addressed rural settings. Energy justice and energy democracy are two terms that are often used synonymously; both are conceptually rooted in debates surrounding environmental justice (Bullard, 1983). The energy dimension of environmental justice is the point of departure for both debates, 101

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

and justice activism have come to the fore through the energy transition debate. Actively promoting and embracing their inherent deliberative potential can present the wider public and rural communities, in particular, with emancipatory alternatives that may run counter to the political and economic interests of elites. So far, however, debates on energy democracy and energy justice have not considered and addressed the rural context. Consequently, rural areas are still mainly considered resource peripheries, dominated by the interests and productive dynamics of urban areas and population centers. While KellyReif and Wing (2016), for example, regard ‘urban-rural exploitation’ as an important challenge for environmental justice, there still remains plenty of room for research into what this exploitation means for energy production and provision and how energy-related topics may shape the exploitative relationship between urban and rural areas. Thus, Munro (2019b) recently argued for peripheralization processes and transitionperiphery dynamics as an analytical lens for understanding the uneven development and multi-scalar dynamics during socio-technical transition processes. While there is an intense debate about the ‘right to the city’ (Harvey, 2012) and its theoretical foundations, dimension, and political manifestations, the notion of ‘rights’ has found its way into debates about energy and rural change only recently. Building on Jiménez (2014) work on a ‘right to infrastructure’, based on IT-technologies, Beveridge and Naumann (2016) discuss the cases of water and energy supply as elements of this right, focusing on the ownership and political control of urban infrastructures. Gordon Walker (2015), in turn, argues for a ‘right to energy’ that guarantees energy provision as a basic human right. However, the various meanings and concrete political implications of a ‘right to energy’ need to be spelled out. Furthermore, these infrastructural rights have so far been discussed with regard to urban contexts. Some scholars have made efforts to develop rural equivalents to the ‘right to the city’, with calls for a ‘right to the countryside’ (Barraclough, 2013) or a ‘right to the village’ (Bühler et al., 2015). These rare discussions of rural rights do not, however, make reference to energy issues. The notions of energy democracy and energy justice are not only a means for mobilizing, spurring action, and guiding political decisionmaking; they can also be harnessed for emancipatory interventions in energy transitions to address rural marginalization and change. Rural energy transitions can present opportunities for realizing democratic principles and justice that transcend the mere rural energy sector. In the next section we will discuss how the features of rural energy transitions – location, contestation, and emancipation – can provide a framework for understanding the rural dimensions of energy transitions.

Fig. 1. Dimensions of rural energy transitions. Source: Own illustration

decision-making regimes, often lie at the heart of energy conflicts. Local acceptance of, and participation in, energy transitions become important issues. Emancipatory energy democracy efforts, energy justice, and ‘right to energy’ initiatives demand justice and sustainability far beyond the energy sector to garner greater local acceptance for energy transitions. A focus on locations, contestations, and emancipatory initiatives within rural energy transitions can, therefore, help explore the technologies, actors, and discourses shaping rural energy transitions. These three dimensions of rural energy transitions should not be seen as distinct from each other, but instead as closely interrelated, as Fig. 1 illustrates. The location of rural energy transitions is often a major bone of contention, in particular, the establishment of wind farms and networks. The emergence, evolution, and resolution of such conflicts has a major impact on rural development. Energy transition technologies, related actors, and discourses require physical space. Rural spaces could provide opportunities and serve as laboratories for projects heralding and advancing energy democracy or energy justice. Situating energy transitions in rural contexts could also contribute to emancipatory processes towards creating more sustainable, just, and democratic rural futures. Contestation and emancipation can be understood as two reciprocal aspects of rural energy transitions. Energy system transformations are always contested and emancipatory issues like energy democracy or justice are major themes within these contestations. Furthermore, emancipatory energy projects can aggravate or pacify contestations. The various interrelations between the three dimensions illustrate that it is necessary to consider the (physical location of) technologies tied to rural energy transitions, and the connected actors (and acts of contestation), as well as the often conflicting ideas and discourses of emancipation through energy systems. This framework for rural energy transitions helps better illustrate the importance of the ‘local’ within energy transitions. Local effects, local settings, and local contestations are constitutive of energy transitions. Such a localist view must, however, be complemented by also considering which other energy systems and rural development scales are also involved. Since the rural is always global (Rignall and Atia, 2017), local energy transitions are embedded in global energy markets, modes of regulation, and discourses. Likewise, rural areas have been under constant pressure from the expansionary and proprietorial power of urbanization, fueled by energy transition efforts. We, therefore, advocate not only a multi-dimensional perspective on rural energy transitions, but also a multi-scalar approach that considers local, regional, national, and global processes. There is a need for a broader conceptualization of the interplay between energy transitions and structural problems in rural communities. This proposed framework can form a starting point for a thorough examination of numerous justice-related issues and participatory challenges from a distinctly rural perspective. In order to better understand the obstacles encountered on the path towards socially and spatially just energy transitions, further research on rural energy transitions could pay more attention to the aspect of rurality, the specific

6. Discussion: dimensions of rural energy transitions We argue that locations, contestations, and efforts to create emancipatory energy systems are the fundamental constituting elements of rural energy transitions. In the following, we discuss how these elements and their interrelations could provide an analytical framework for rural energy transitions. The heuristic framework aims to address energy systems in different rural contexts and to explore rural characteristics of energy transition processes. The framework could contribute to debates on whether, and how, rural energy transitions are part of a ‘sustainable place making’ (Marsden and Farioli, 2015). The formulation of ‘renewable energy narratives’ (Curran, 2012; Phillips and Dickie, 2014) about rural areas could develop into an area for further research and future activism. Siting energy infrastructures, such as plants and networks, is necessary for the physical realization of energy transitions. As discussed above, rural spaces are seen as particularly suitable for hosting the facilities of new energy systems. Although energy transitions are thought to entail various benefits for rural communities, these new systems are often fiercely contested in rural settings. The impact of energy facilities on rural landscapes and the distribution of costs and benefits, as well as 102

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

needs and socio-cultural identities of rural areas, the danger of stigmatizing rural areas within the realm of renewable energy production, and the uneven distribution of burdens and benefits of energy transitions across regions. Future research could also examine procedural injustices and the danger of misinterpreting rural needs in transition processes, the scope for rural residents to participate as equals in the energy supply, the colonization of rural areas through land grabbing for the purpose of renewable energy production, rural areas as spaces where socio-ecological green growth fixes are implemented, the implications of planetary urbanization, and many other research questions. A critical discussion of such topics could enrich social science research on rural energy systems and rural studies with a focus on energy, as we will argue in the conclusion.

environmental injustice. J. Rural Stud. 47, 271–277. Avila, S., 2018. Environmental justice and the expanding geography of wind power conflicts. Sustain. Sci. 13, 599–616. Bailey, I., Darkal, H., 2018. Not) talking about justice: justice self-recognition and the integration of energy and environmental-social justice into renewable energy siting. Local Environ. 23, 335–351. Balta-Ozkan, N., Watson, T., Mocca, E., 2015. Spatially uneven development and low carbon transitions: insights from urban and regional planning. Energy Policy 85, 500–510. Barnett, J., Burningham, K., Walker, G., Cass, N., 2010. Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Underst. Sci. 21, 36–50. Barraclough, L., 2013. Is there also a right to the countryside? Antipode 45, 1047–1049. Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., 2017. Energy colonialism and the role of the global in local responses to new energy infrastructures in the UK: a critical and exploratory empirical analysis. Antipode 49, 3–22. Baumber, A., Merson, J., Ampt, P., Diesendorf, M., 2011. The adoption of short-rotation energy cropping as a new land use option in the New South Wales Central West. Rural Soc. 20, 266–279. Becker, S., Naumann, M., 2017. Energy democracy: mapping the debate on energy alternatives. Geogr. Compass 11, e12321. Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C., 2005. The ‘Social Gap’ in wind farm citing decisions: explanations and policy responses. Environ. Pol. 14, 460–477. Bell, D., Gray, T., Haggett, C., Swaffield, J., 2013. Re-visiting the ‘social gap’: public opinion and relations of power in the local politics of wind energy. Environ. Pol. 22, 115–135. Benedek, J., Sebestyén, T.-T., Bartók, B., 2018. Evaluation of renewable energy sources in peripheral areas and renewable energy-based rural development. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 90, 516–535. Berka, A.L., Creamer, E., 2018. Tacking stock of the local impacts of community owned renewable energy: a review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 3400–3419. Beveridge, R., Naumann, M., 2016. Another urban infrastructure is possible: contesting energy and water networks in Berlin. In: Coutard, O., Rutherford, J. (Eds.), Beyond the Networked City. Infrastructure Reconfigurations and Urban Change in the North and South. Routledge, London/New York. Boamah, F., 2019. Emerging low-carbon energy landscapes and energy innovation dilemmas in the Kenyan periphery. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr online first. Bouzarovski, S., Simcock, N., 2017. Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy 107, 640–648. Bridge, G., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., Eyre, N., 2013. Geographies of energy transition: space, place and the low-carbon economy. Energy Policy 53, 331–340. Bristow, G., Cowell, R., Munday, M., 2012. Windfalls for whom? The evolving notion of ‘community’ in community benefit provisions from wind farms. Geoforum 43, 1108–1120. Bühler, E., Darly, S., Milian, J., 2015. Arenas and resources of the right to the village: the underpinnings of emancipation in Western countryside in the 21st century. https:// halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01512405/document. Bullard, R., 1983. Solid waste sites and the black Houston community. Sociol. Inq. 53, 273–328. Calvert, K., 2015. From ‘energy geography’ to ‘energy geographies’. Perspectives on a fertile academic borderland. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 40, 105–125. Cass, N., Walker, G., Devine-Wright, P., 2010. Good neighbours, public relations and bribes: the politics and perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 12, 255–275. Castan Broto, V., 2017. Energy landscapes and urban trajectories towards sustainability. Energy Policy 108, 755–764. Castree, N., 2003. Commodifying what nature? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 27, 273–297. Cloke, J., Mohr, A., Brown, E., 2017. Imagining renewable energy: towards a Social Energy Systems approach to community renewable projects in the Global South. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 31, 263–272. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., 2012. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 41, 968–979. Cowell, R., 2010. Wind power, landscape and strategic, spatial planning – the construction of ‘acceptable locations’ in Wales. Land Use Policy 27, 222–232. Cowell, R., Bristow, G., Munday, M., 2011. Acceptance, acceptability and environmental justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54, 539–554. Cowell, R., 2016. Decentralising Energy Governance? Wales, Devolution and the Politics of Energy Infrastructure Decision-Making. Environment and Planning C online first. Creamer, E., 2014. The double-edged sword of grant funding: a study of community-led climate change initiatives in remote rural Scotland. Local Environ. 20, 981–999. Curran, G., 2012. Contested energy futures: shaping renewable energy narratives in Australia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 236–244. Dawley, S., 2013. Creating new paths? Offshore wind, policy activism, and peripheral region development. Econ. Geogr. 90, 91–112. Devine-Wright, P., 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 426–441. Devine-Wright, P., Sherry-Brennan, F., 2019. Where do you draw the line? Legitimacy and fairness in constructing benefit fund boundaries for energy infrastructure projects. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 54, 166–175. Dunlap, A., 2017. ‘The town is surrounded’: from climate concerns to life under wind turbines in La ventosa, Mexico. Hum. Geogr. 10, 16–36. Eaton, W., Gasteyer, S., Busch, L., 2014. Bioenergy futures: framing sociotechnical imaginaries in local places. Rural Sociol. 79, 227–256. Ejdemo, T., Söderholm, P., 2015. Wind power, regional development and benefit sharing:

7. Conclusion This article began by indicating that there is very little cross-fertilization between social science research on energy and rural studies. As discussed above, so far there has been only a limited amount of attention devoted to the rural dimensions of energy transitions, especially in the Global North. There are, however, numerous dimensions where rural areas meaningfully and productively impact energy transitions and vice versa. These are grounds for studying energy transitions and rural spaces from a holistic perspective. We have argued that the impact of energy transitions on rural areas can be conceptualized in terms of locations, contestations, and emancipatory questions. The interplay of these dimensions serves as a framework for conceptualizing and investigating rural energy transitions. Rural spaces are a fundamental prerequisite for successful energy transitions, and transforming energy systems can drive rural change. A more thorough and critical examination of energy topics within rural studies can, therefore, yield valuable insights into the changing political economy of rural areas, the valorization of its landscapes, and conflicting visions of rurality and sustainability. On the other hand, a rural perspective on energy transitions can facilitate a more nuanced understanding of local possibilities, conflicts, and the underlying discourses and practices shaping energy transformations. Thus, we advocate energizing rural studies and ruralizing energy research in order to enrich future research. Such research could employ a historical perspective on rural energy transitions that investigates the interplay between energy sector transformations and transformations of other rural infrastructures, and also examines overlapping imperatives of sustainability and austerity politics in rural areas. Energy transition and rural change need to be brought together and studied as one in order to address current challenges faced by rural areas, to relieve rural areas from existential pressure caused by uneven development, and to develop visions and paths towards a sustainable rural future. Focusing on rural energy transitions could provide valuable lessons about what a more sustainable and just future could look that transcends the energy sector and rural areas. The importance and complexity of this challenge should not be underestimated. Together, researchers focusing on rurality and those studying energy issues can make a significant contribution to better understanding and potentially bringing about a more sustainable and just future. References Aitken, M., 2010. Wind power and community benefits. Challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 38, 6066–6075. Aitken, M., Haggett, C., Rudolph, D., 2016. Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment. Plan. Theory Pract. 17, 557–576. Anderson, N., Ford, R., Williams, K., 2017. Contested beliefs about land-use associated with divergent representations of a rural landscape as place. Landsc. Urban Plan. 157, 75–89. Argent, N., 2019. Rural geography II: scalar and social constructionist perspectives on climate change adaptation and rural resilience. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 43, 181–193. Ashwood, L., MacTavish, K., 2016. Introduction: tyranny of the majority and rural

103

Journal of Rural Studies 73 (2020) 97–104

M. Naumann and D. Rudolph

179, 132–140. Ottinger, G., 2013. The winds of change: environmental justice in energy transitions. Sci. Cult. 22, 222–229. Pasqualetti, M., 2011. Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geogr. Rev. 101, 201–223. Pasqualetti, M., Stremke, S., 2018. Energy landscapes in a crowded world: a first typology of origins and expressions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36, 94–105. Phadke, R., 2011. Resisting and reconciling big wind: middle landscape politics in the new American west. Antipode 43, 754–776. Phillips, M., Dickie, J., 2014. Narratives of transition/non-transition towards low-carbon futures within English rural communities. J. Rural Stud. 34, 79–95. Phimister, E., Roberts, D., 2012. The role of ownership in determining the rural economic benefits of on-shore wind farms. J. Agric. Econ. 63, 331–360. Poggi, F., Firmino, A., Amado, M., 2015. Moving forward on sustainable energy transitions: the smart rural model. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 4, 43–50. Poggi, F., Firmino, A., Amado, M., 2018. Planning renewable energy in rural areas: impacts on occupation and land use. Energy 155, 630–640. Rehman, I., Kar, A., Raven, R., Singh, D., Tiwari, J., Jha, R., Sinha, P., Mirza, A., 2010. Rural energy transitions in developing countries: a case of the Uttam Urja initiative in India. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 303–311. Rignall, K., Atia, M., 2017. The global rural: relational geographies of poverty and uneven development. Geogr. Compass 11, e12322. Roberts, E., Henwood, D., 2018. Exploring the everyday energyscapes of rural dwellers in Wales: putting relational space to work in research on everyday energy use. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36, 44–51. Rudolph, D., Haggett, C., Aitken, M., 2018. Community benefits from offshore renewables. The relationship between different understandings of impact, community and benefit. Environ. Plan. C: Polit. Space 36, 92–117. Rudolph, D., Kirkegaard, J., 2019. Making space for wind farms: practices of territorial stigmatisation in rural Denmark. Antipode 51, 642–663. Rutherford, J., Coutard, O., 2014. Urban energy transitions: places, processes, and politics of sociotechnical change. Urban Stud. 51, 1353–1378. Shamsuzzoha, A.H.M., Grant, A., Clarke, J., 2012. Implementation of renewable energy in a Scottish rural area: a social study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 185–191. Shirani, F., Groves, C., Butler, C., Parkhill, K., Henwood, K., Pidgeon, N., 2016. Living in the future: environmental concerns, parenting, and low-impact lifestyles. 2016 In: Ansell, N., Klocker, N., Skelton, T. (Eds.), Geographies of Global Issues, Change and Threat. Springer, Singapore. Shucksmith, M., 2018. Re-imagining the rural: from rural idyll to Good Countryside. J. Rural Stud. 59, 163–172. Sovacool, B.K., Dworkin, M.H., 2015. Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical applications. Appl. Energy 142, 435–444. Späth, P., Rohracher, H., 2010. ‘Energy regions’: the transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Res. Policy 39, 449–458. Van der Horst, D., 2007. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35, 2705–2714. Van der Horst, D., Toke, D., 2010. Exploring the landscape of wind farm developments; local area characteristics and planning process outcomes in rural England. Land Use Policy 27, 214–221. Van Veelen, B., 2017. Making sense of the scottish community energy sector – an organizing typology. Scott. Geogr. J. 133, 1–20. Vannini, P., Taggart, J., 2013. Making sense of domestic warmth: affect, involvement, and thermoception in off-grid homes. Body Soc. 20, 61–81. Walker, G., 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy production and use? Energy Policy 36, 4401–4405. Walker, G., 2015. The right to energy: meaning, specification and the politics of definition. L'Europe en Formation 378, 26–38. Walsh, B., 2016. Community: a powerful label? Connecting wind energy to rural Ireland. Commun. Dev. J online first. Wheeler, R., 2016. Reconciling windfarms with rural place identity: exploring residents' attitudes to existing sites. Sociol. Rural. 57, 100–132. Wolsink, M., 2007. Wind power implementation: the nature of public attitudes: equity and fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11, 1188–1207. Woods, M., 2003. Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: windfarm development in mid wales. Sociol. Rural. 43, 271–288. Woods, M., 2007. Engaging the global countryside: globalization, hybridity and the reconstitution of rural place. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31, 485–507. Woods, M., 2009. Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 33, 849–858. Woods, M., 2012. Rural Geography III: rural futures and the future of rural geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 125–134. Zimmerer, K.S., 2011. New geographies of energy: introduction to the special issue. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 101, 705–711. Zografes, C., Martinez-Alier, J., 2009. The politics of landscape value: a case study of wind farm conflict in rural catalonia. Environ. Plan. 41, 1726–1744.

the case of Northern Sweden. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 47, 476–485. Fast, S., 2013. Social acceptance of renewable energy: trends, concepts, and geographies. Geogr. Compass 7, 853–866. Fast, S., 2015. Qualified, absolute, idealistic, impatient: dimensions of host community responses to wind energy projects. Environ. Plan. 47, 1540–1557. Frantal, B., Pasqualetti, M., van der Horst, D., 2014. New trends and challenges for energy geographies: introduction to the special issue. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 22, 2–6. Fuller, S., McCauley, D., 2016. Framing energy justice: perspectives from activism and advocacy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 1–8. Gailing, L., Röhring, A., 2016. Is it all about collaborative governance? Alternative ways of understanding the success of energy regions. Util. Policy 41, 237–245. Haggett, C., Aitken, M., 2015. Grassroot energy innovations: the role of community ownership and investment. Curr. Sustain./Renew. Energy Rep. 2, 98–104. Hansen, T., Coenen, L., 2015. The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent field. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 17, 92–109. Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities. Verso, London. Hayter, R., Barnes, T., Bradshaw, M., 2003. Relocating resource peripheries to the core of economic geography's theorizing: rationale and agenda. Area 35, 15–23. Hicks, J., Ison, N., 2011. Community-owned renewable energy (CRE): opportunities for rural Australia. Rural Soc. 20, 244–255. Huber, M., 2015. Theorizing energy geographies. Geogr. Compass 9, 327–338. Huber, M., McCarthy, J., 2017. Beyond the subterranean energy regime? Fuel, land use and the production of space. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 42, 655–668. Jefferson, M., 2018. Safeguarding rural landscapes in the new era of energy transition to a low carbon future. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 191–197. Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., Rehner, R., 2016. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11, 174–182. Jiménez, A.C., 2014. The right to infrastructure: a prototype for open source urbanism. Environ. Plan. D 32, 342–362. Kelly-Reif, K., Wing, S., 2016. Urban-rural exploitation: an underappreciated dimension of environmental injustice. J. Rural Stud. 47, 350–358. Kitchen, L., Marsden, T., 2009. Creating sustainable rural development through stimulating the eco-economy: beyond the eco-economic paradox. Sociol. Rural. 49, 273–294. Kunze, C., Hertel, M., 2017. Contested deep geothermal energy in Germany – the emergence of an environmental protest movement. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 27, 174–180. Lennon, M., Scott, M., 2017. Opportunity or Threat: dissecting tensions in a post-carbon rural transition. Sociol. Rural. 57, 87–109. Love, T., Garwood, A., 2011. Wind, sun and water: complexities of alternative energy development in rural northern Peru. Rural Soc. 20, 294–307. Magnani, N., Maretti, M., Salvatore, R., Scotti, I., 2017. Ecopreneurs, rural development and alternative socio-technical arrangements for community renewable energy. J. Rural Stud. 52, 33–41. Markantoni, M., Woolvin, M., 2015. The role of rural communities in the transition to a low-carbon Scotland: a review. Local Environ. 20, 202–219. Marsden, T., 2016. Exploring the rural eco-economy: beyond neoliberalism. Sociol. Rural. 56, 597–615. Marsden, T., Farioli, F., 2015. Natural powers: from the bio-economy to the eco-economy and sustainable place-making. Sustain. Sci. 10, 331–344. McCarthy, J., 2005. Rural geography: multifunctional rural geographies – reactionary or radical? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 29, 773–782. McCarthy, J., 2015. A socioecological fix to capitalist crisis and climate change? The possibilities and limits of renewable energy. Environ. Plan. A 41, 2485–2502. McCauley, D.A., Heffron, R.J., Stephan, H., Jenkins, K., 2013. Advancing energy justice: the triumvirate of tenets. Int. Energy Law Rev. 32, 107–110. Morris, C., Jungjohann, A., 2016. Energy Democracy. Germany's Energiewende to Renewables. Palgrave Macmillan. Morrison, C., Ramsey, E., 2019. Power to the people. Developing networks through rural community energy schemes. J. Rural Stud. 70, 169–178. Moss, T., Becker, S., Naumann, M., 2015. Whose energy transition is it, anyway? Organisation and ownership of the Energiewende in villages, cities and regions. Local Environ. 20, 1547–1563. Mulvaney, K., Woodson, P., Stalker Prokopy, L., 2013. A tale of three counties: understanding wind development in the rural Midwestern United States. Energy Policy 56, 322–330. Munday, M., Bristow, G., Cowell, R., 2011. Wind farms in rural areas: how far do community benefits from wind farms represent a local economic development opportunity? J. Rural Stud. 27, 1–12. Munro, F.R., 2019. Renewable energy and transition-periphery dynamics in Scotland. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 31, 273–281. Munro, F.R., 2019. The geography of socio-technical transitions: transition-periphery dynamics. Geogr. J. 185 (4), 447–458 online first. Murphy, J., 2001. Making the energy transition in rural east Africa: is leapfrogging an alternative? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 68, 173–193. Murphy, J., Smith, A., 2013. Understanding transition-periphery dynamics: renewable energy in the highlands and island of scotland. Environ. Plan. 45, 691–709. Newell, P., Mulvaney, D., 2013. The political economy of the ‘just transition’. Geogr. J.

104